In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far
less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened
in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she
startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was
not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London
were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, “just
to keep the people frightened.” Orwell, 1984, 127.

At a time when the ideal Supreme Court nominee comes coated in Teflon, the better to fend off partisan attacks, Elena Kagan has a pretty good resume.
She has never served as a judge and her writings reveal little about how she would rule on the most ideologically divisive issues of the day. The absence of any meaningful paper trail, apart from things such as her decision as Harvard Law School dean to ban military recruiters, makes her less of a target.

Yet there is one legal case in Kagan's background that to a small group of litigants constitutes a profound distortion of justice, a slap in the face that they say stings even now, one year later.

And they contend that the Senate Judiciary Committee should keep this case in mind, painful though it may be to revisit the matter, as it reviews Kagan's nomination in the coming weeks.

In a sign that the bitter litigation between victims of the 9/11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia is far from over, Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday introduced legislation that would overturn court rulings barring lawsuits that contend the desert kingdom helped cause the terrorism.

Specter (D., Pa.) said the legislation would clarify that lawsuits by U.S. citizens could go forward without a sign-off from the State Department.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.

"...That was more or less the position of the Obama administration as well, which sided with the [SAUDIS] and urged the courts to dismiss the lawsuit."

"...Among the documents were a statement from an Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia who said the Saudi High Commission had funded the terrorist group in the 1990s, and evidence from the U.S. Treasury Department that a Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, had been financially supporting Al Qaeda as recently as 2006."

I'm not surprised that the little people of the world, the victims, have no say in international affairs. This is quite blatant and is essentially the status quo. The famous quote by Nazi Air Marshall Herman Goering is relevant here:

WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

Saudi filing faults Cozen suit: The Phila. law firm wants the kingdom held accountable for the Sept. 11 attacks. Saudis say U.S. law prohibits that.

By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer

Setting the stage for a critical court decision, lawyers for Saudi Arabia have asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda.
In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.

The lawsuit was brought by the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen O'Connor on behalf of dozens of insurance companies that paid out billions in property-damage claims at ground zero. A federal district court judge in Manhattan threw out the case against Saudi Arabia in 2005, and that decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The following FBI document was obtained by the website "Intelwire.com" in February of this year. It confirms the following:

"Phone records revealed Bayoumi called local Saudi officials, including the consulate in San Diego, 34 times. He called Saudi officials in Washington D.C. 141 times in the same period, according to the memo -- more than twice a day on average."

This is the man the FBI hid from investigators, and who had hosted 2 alleged hijackers and paid for them to get an apartment. There is also a discrepancy about when he met them, with an apparent lie that he did not meet them at the airport the day of their arrival.